Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV33885, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV33885 Hearing Date: February 4, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 22STCV33885
On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff Sulayman Sohna (“Sohna”) filed an action against Defendants Inna Puchkova (“Puchkova”) and Does 1-50 for negligence. (Case number 22STCV33885.)
On March 14, 2024, Puchkova filed an answer.
Trial is currently scheduled for March 25, 2025.
B. Case number 24STCV16290
On June 28, 2024, Plaintiff Elizabeth Holtz (“Holtz”) filed a complaint against Defendants Puchkova and Does 1-50 for negligence. (Case number 24STCV16290.)
On November 1, 2024, Puchkova filed an answer.
C. The Court relates case numbers 22STCV33885 and 24STCV16290
On December 12, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV33885 and 24STCV16290 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV33885 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
D. Motion to consolidate
On December 18, 2024, Puchkova filed a motion to consolidate in case number 22STCV33885. The motion was set for hearing on February 4, 2025.
PARTY'S REQUEST
Puchkova asks the Court to consolidate case numbers 22STCV33885 and 24STCV16290.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a), provides:
“(a) When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a), provides:
“(a) Requirements of motion
“(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must:
“(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of record;
“(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and
“(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.
“(2) The motion to consolidate:
“(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered case;
“(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a).)
Los Angeles County Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(g) provides: “(1) Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department. (2) Upon consolidation of cases, the first filed case will be the lead case, unless otherwise ordered by the court. After consolidation, all future papers to be filed in the consolidated case must be filed only in the case designated as the lead case. (3) Before consolidation of a limited case with an unlimited case, the limited case must be reclassified as an unlimited case and the reclassification fee paid.”
DISCUSSION
Puchkova’s motion to consolidate does not comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a). Puchkova did not file the notice of motion “in each case sought to be consolidated.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).) In addition, the proof of service lists only counsel for Sohna. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(2)(B) [motion “[m]ust be served on all attorneys of record and all nonrepresented parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated”].)
The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice the motion to consolidate case numbers 22STCV33885 and 24STCV16290 filed by Defendant Inna Puchkova.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.